Back
High Court Of Delhi
BALAJI CELLULOSE PRODUCTS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
.
Decided On : 07/07/2003
Held:
It is dear that the respondent originally had the policy of permitting inclusion of the names of mills in the said Schedule I on their submitting test reports of either the CPPRI or of any other recognised institute recognised by the Bureau of Indian Standards. This policy, as it appears from the nothings and the counter affidavit, has been changed. The policy now is that whether it is a mill whose name is already included or it is one which seeks inclusion in the said Schedule I, they all have to obtain test reports from CPPRI in addition to test reports from other recognised institutes. This, being the case, the question of the new policy being applicable prospectively and not retrospectively as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not arise. This is so because even if it is assumed that the petitioner is entitled to have its name included in Schedule I it would still, under the new policy which admittedly would be applicable from 27.4.2001 onwards, require to submit a test report from CPPRI because this requirement, as stated in the affidavit of the respondent is a requirement which has to be complied with not only by all those seeking inclusion but also by those already included.
It is well settled that this court does not undertake and should not undertake review of policy decisions of the Government under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether the test reports are to be provided by institute "A" or institute "B" is not the concern of this Court. Nor is this Court well conversed with scientific or technical matters in this regard. All that this Court has to see is that the action complained of is not arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust or unfair. If there are reasons for any action and if the action is not discriminatory but is applicable to all then this Court will not and should not interfere.
There is no arbitrariness o unreasonableness on the part of the respondent to insist upon testing being done by CPPRI, Saharanpur. This change in policy is not without basis or reason. It is neither capricious not discriminatory. All mills, those already included in the said Schedule I and those seeking such inclusion, are now required to have their newsprint sampled and tested by the CPPRI. There is no scope for the petitioner to call this discriminatory. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the supreme court, it is clear that this is not a case where interference with the policy decision is called for.p8
As the requirement of testing by CPPRI has been made compulsory for all, the arguments against retrospectively are also not tenable. Those who fail to meet the standards as per the test would either not be included in the said Schedule I or if already included would be removed there from. The consequences of not meeting the standards are severe and accordingly, the entire argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of the policy being merely directory and not mandatory is also untenable.
( 1 ). The petitioner is a medium class manufacturer of white writing, printing and newsprint paper. The petitioner seeks inclusion in Schedule I of the newsprint Control Order, 1962. The object of such inclusion is that on being so included in the said schedule, a manufacturer is entitled to excise exemption. Thus, inclusion in the said Schedule would give a manufacturer of newsprint a competitive edge and non-inclusion would result in making it difficult for the manufacturer to match up with those who enjoy the excise exemption.
( 2 ). In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus ordering and directing the respondent to withdraw the fresh condition imposed in the letter dated 30. 5. 2001 and to register the petitioner in Schedule I of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962 based on the conditions first laid down in the letter dated 16. 1. 2001.
( 3 ). The facts are that by an application dated 20. 10. 2000, the petitioner applied for its inclusion in Schedule I of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962. In response thereto, by a letter dated 16. 1. 2001 the respondent required the petitioner to submit, inter alia a test report in original from the Central Pulp and Paper Research Institute, (CPPRI), Saharanpur or any other laboratory recognised by the Bureau qf Indian Standards (BIS) as to whether the paper manufactured by the petitioner conformed to IS :11638-1999 which is the specification for newsprint paper after following the proper sampling procedure laid down by BIS. By a letter dated 6. 2. 2001 the petitioner informed the respondent that they are an "iso 9002 : 1994" company and that various registered newspapers, namely, the Daily Tej, Amar Ujala, The Aj and Chena vichardhara have also confirmed that the newsprint manufactured by the petitioner was satisfactory in terms of smoothness, "runability" and "printability" on their printing machines. On 20. 2. 2001 the respondent required the petitioner to submit certificates as indicated therein from a Chartered Accountant and a Chartered Engineer in respect of the manufacture and supply of newsprint by them. The respondent also wrote directly to the aforesaid four newspapers requiring them to re-confirm that the paper supplied by the petitioner had been utilised as newsprint and had been found to meet their requirements fully. By a letter dated 5. 3. 2001, the petitioner, after recording that it had submitted all the relevant papers required for the purpose, informed, the respondent that the inspection of the petitioners unit had been completed in the last week of February, 2001 and the final test result was likely to come at any time and requested for inclusion of its name in the said schedule I of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962. By its letter dated 10. 3. 2001 the petitioner forwarded the test certificate from Indian Institute of Packaging, delhi in original which, as per the petitioner, was issued after following proper sampling procedure as laid down by BIS. The certificate confirmed that the newsprint manufactured by the petitioner conformed to IS: 11688- 1999. The petitioner further stated therein that it had completed all the documentation required in connection with the inclusion of the petitioner in schedule I of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962. The petitioner requested that the same be expedited so that the petitioner is able to compete with the mills already registered/included in the said Schedule. The laboratory test reports, copies of which have been placed at pages 27, 28 and 29 of the paper book indicated that the samples of newsprint paper drawn on 26. 2. 2001 at the petitioner s mills located in Muzaffarnagar, UP. conformed to IS:11688-1999.
( 4 ). By another letter dated 17. 3. 2001 the petitioner submitted further documents which were required by the respondent. In this letter, it was clearly recorded that the petitioner was informed that the said four newspaper establishments had also sent their individual c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
